My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I make it clear that we all recognise the importance of ensuring that those who come to this country do so safely and legally. That principle is not in dispute, and earlier today I already referred to Homes for Ukraine and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. However, I am concerned that some of the amendments before us would unreasonably tie the hands of any Government in a way that would be neither practical nor wise.

On Amendment 164, the reality is that migration flows are shaped by global crises and events over which we have little control, whether conflict, natural disaster or political instability. To legislate now for a mandatory increase in quotas and routes, regardless of future circumstances, is to commit ourselves to a policy framework that may not reflect the realities of tomorrow. We should allow the Government of the day the flexibility to respond to events as they arise, not bind them with artificial statutory requirements.

I made the point earlier that public confidence in our migration system is a precious and finite resource. The British people have made it clear that they want overall migration numbers to come down. If we ignore that, we risk undermining the very public support on which the sustainability of safe and legal routes depends. For those reasons, while I accept the good intentions of this amendment, I believe that it would make for poor legislation and cannot support it.

On Amendment 173 and the humanitarian travel permit, I am afraid that I must once again position myself against this proposal. Proposed new subsection (1) would oblige an appropriate decision-maker to grant entry clearance if satisfied that a person is a relevant person. That test is defined in proposed new subsection (2) in extraordinarily broad terms. The applicant merely

“intends to make a protection claim” that would have a realistic prospect of success, and

“there are serious and compelling reasons” for that claim to be considered here.

Yet how are these serious and compelling reasons to be assessed? Proposed new subsection (3) would require consideration of matters such as the applicant’s risk of persecution, their family ties and their health and vulnerabilities, all of which would have to be determined remotely from overseas without the proper safeguards or full knowledge that in-country processes allow. That is a recipe for abuse, dishonesty and serious error, as well as a massive increase in the administrative and operational burden which is creating the inertia that we already see in our asylum system as it stands.

Proposed new subsection (4) would compel the decision-maker to waive the usual requirements under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and the Biometric provisions of the UK Borders Act 2007 if the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to comply. In other words, the very security checks that are in place to protect the integrity of our borders could be set aside. It is reckless to propose that we water down the safeguards currently in place when the threat we face is far from hypothetical.

Proposed new subsection (6) would remove the fee for such an application, further incentivising volume and adding yet more pressure on an overstretched system. Most concerning of all, proposed new subsection (7) guarantees a minimum grant of six months’ leave to enter, baseline rights to remain conferred in advance of any asylum determination. Proposed new subsection (8) goes further still, deeming the protection claim to be made the moment that the individual sets foot in the United Kingdom.

The consequences are obvious. This would place an immense burden on our border authorities. It would substantially reduce oversight of who is arriving and worsen the very delays which the asylum system is already struggling with. I suggest respectfully that these amendments ignore the reality that the British people feel that our system is already out of control, too lenient and too open to abuse, and that this would take us in precisely the opposite direction to that which the public demand. It is an invitation to expand the system to breaking point. My concerns are shared by other noble Lords. Although my noble friend Lord Jackson is not in his place, I welcome the changes proposed in his Amendment 174.

Finally, on Amendments 203B and 203C, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, this Committee will know that the BNO visa route has been a vital scheme, reflecting our historic obligations and our modern responsibilities. It has provided a lifeline to many who sought refuge here and it has been source of pride that the United Kingdom has upheld it with fairness and dignity. Amendment 203B seeks to place the BNO on a statutory footing. I can understand the motivation behind that: to provide reassurance and stability to those who have already made their lives here and who rely on the existing pathway to settlement after five years of lawful residence. That principle of safeguarding continuity in such a scheme is one that I support.

I approach the proposal with a small degree of caution, in that we must always be mindful of hardwiring provisions into statute that could have implications for flexibility in government policy and for how immigration law is best managed. It is not immediately clear that this is the most appropriate legislative vehicle, but I hope that the Minister can use this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. Do Ministers remain fully committed to the BNO route as it currently operates, and have they given thought to whether such statutory underpinning of the scheme as suggested in this amendment might give greater reassurance without unduly constraining future policy-making? I look forward to hearing the Ministers’ views—I am looking at both Ministers.

Perhaps I can briefly cover the final amendment in this group, Amendment 203C. I am proud, and I am sure that noble Lords across the Committee are proud, of the support that this country has provided to those from Ukraine who have sought refuge here. At a time of great hardship, we have stood alongside our ally and her people, and I am glad that this is a point on which we can all agree. It is a developing situation, and I know that all of us here share the same wish that all Ukrainians should one day be able to return to a country that is safe, secure and free from the tyranny of Russia. Until that day comes, however, we must ensure that our support for those in need continues. On that basis I would welcome an update from the Minister on this, and an assurance that those who require our help from Ukraine will continue to receive it.